| Justice
and Compulsion, by Anthony Peter Iannini, 1999 |
|
|
Essay Overview: A look at justice in the Athenian Empire, from the
perspective of Thucydides (c. 460-411 BC).
The History of the Peloponnesian War is one of the most important
political commentaries ever written. Thucydides, through accurate historical accounts and
poetic dialogue, provides insightful observations about the nature and motivation of
governments.
And, although the account was written more than twenty-three hundred years
ago, it clearly illustrates how human nature and politics have remained constant—
despite dramatic changes in such things as technology and population.
In The Melian dialogue, Thucydides writes about the negotiations between the
Athenians and the inhabitants of the island of Melos. At the onset of the debate, Athenian
forces are in position to siege the nation and decimate its people, but think that a
peaceful takeover would benefit both city-states.
The Melians, on the other hand, are left
with two undesirable outcomes in the negotiations, "if we make a better case for
justice and do not surrender because of that, we will have war; but if you win the
argument, we will have servitude."(1)
The Athenians begin their argument by stating that they will not try to justify
themselves based on past events or moral grounds. Rather, they assert a view that
illustrates their view of justice in relation to the outcome of a dispute. ". .
.decisions about justice are made in human decisions only when both sides are under equal
compulsion; but when one side is stronger, it gets as much as it can, and the weak must
accept that."(2)
Thucydides, in these lines, makes a striking point. It is not that
the mightier nation becomes justified because of it’s strength, but rather that the
mightier nation is not required to consider justice when dealing with a weaker nation.
When Thucydides refers to "equal compulsion"(3) he is making a statement
about the existence of a superior judgmental force; like the law. If two men are engaged
in a dispute, then they must obey the laws of the society they live in. If two nations are
engaged in a dispute, what law or superior authority must they obey?
It seems as though
every nation must necessarily do what is in its best interest, regardless of what that
possibly entails; either positive or negative positions toward other governments.
Thucydides indicates that compulsion or necessity does in part govern political affairs
throughout the dialogue. The Melians propose a solution to the dispute: they will fight
with neither side, and be the friend rather than enemy of Athens. This proposition of
neutrality is not accepted by the Athenian delegates because this would not be in the best
interest of Athens.
"Your enmity does not hurt us as much as your friendship would.
That would be a sign of our weakness to those who are ruled by us. . ."(4) The
Athenians do make an assumption about what would happen if they did let the Melians remain
neutral, but it is an assumption founded in reason.
In terms of this assumption founded in reason, the Athenians state, "They [other
cities under Athenian rule] think we have as good a justification for controlling you as
we do for them".(5) And the Athenians go on to explain that the common view is that a
city that remains independent does so only because of its strength, and only because
Athens would be afraid of that strength.
Fear of Melos is not a message the Athenians
would like to send to their empire because it would set a precedent, and possibly be
followed by other nations.
At this point, the Athenians are again clinging to the idea of necessity. If the
Athenians do not take Melos, then they think that they will loose power, control, and
other things that are in their best interest. The Melians think that the best interest of
both nations can be satisfied by Athens allowing Melos to remain independent and becoming
Athens’ friends.
But it is apparent that Melian neutrality is not in the interest of
the Athenian empire from the perspective of the Athenians. This is a problem that
Thucydides seems to have an insightful grasp of. If two nations are roughly equal in
strength, then justified action could well be in the best interest of both nations. But,
when one nation is much stronger than the other, the best interest of the mightier nation
precedes that of the weaker nation without even considering justice as an arbiter.
Melos could be given independence, if and only if, it is in the interest of Athens.
But, because the required interest is not satisfied, Melos can not be given independence.
One very important point can be illustrated by an example. Let’s say that nation A
believes that doing X will be in its best interest.
First, we must notice that A only believes or assumes that doing X will be in its best interest. In reality, it may be
that doing X would be detrimental to nation A’s interest, as exemplified in
Athens’ Sicilian expedition. But, there is one underlying notion behind all nations
doing all things. That one thing is survival. If nation A felt threatened, nation A would
do X to survive, just as a person would do in an analogous situation.
So, where is the line between the compulsion or necessity to survive and the actions of
the Athenian empire? I think it comes down to the perspective of the nation in question.
If during the dispute with Melos, the Athenians truly felt that not conquering the island
nation was detrimental to their survival as an empire, then were they not acting much like
an animal faced with danger?
Let’s say that someone takes a small dose of poison for
a number of days. Each dose is not lethal, but each brings this person closer to death.
Similarly, the Athenian empire would not immediately crumble due to Melian independence.
But, it would be one dose of poison, weakening the empire and compromising its integrity.
The response to this argument will be that Athens did not try to merely survive, but
rather expand its power and control. Athens initially created the empire for the purpose
of protection against the Persians.
Once this protective empire was no longer necessary,
Athens held on to the power and control it had gained over the Aegean.
This choice does
not seem to have been made by compulsion— but rather by some force of human nature
that always wants more. However, once the choice was made, expansion became a necessity
for the survival of what had been established.
In terms of a nation that is the seat of an empire, it seems as though controlled
expansion is an integral part of survival. In any empire there are nations under the
control of the head of the empire. When there are independent nations in existence, the
nations under the control of the empire will be able to strive for that level of
independence.
If the empire is static in terms of it’s level of power, then all it
can do is dissolve with time as it’s tribunes revolt. On the other hand, if the
empire remains dynamic, always expanding, always taking more control, that empire is
ensuring its continued survival— so long as it does not over reach its power. |
|
"Thucydides", 2010, by Anthony Peter Iannini |
The Athenians sum up their position near the end of the dialogue, "Remember what
is usually the best course: do not give way to equals, but have the right attitude towards
your superiors and use moderation towards your inferiors."(6)
The Athenians are
pointing to a truth in nature; that the big fish eats the little fish out of necessity. If
the empire did not swallow up smaller nations as its tribunes, the Athenian empire would
dissolve through revolts. And, it seems as though if there were a much mightier empire
than Athens, then Athens would have to abide by the same restrictions they impose on the
Melians.
Like people, nations die. Like people, governments fight death and do everything they
can to survive. In the case of the Athenians, their nation was an empire. The means of
survival of an empire may seem unjust to those outside the empire. But if we, as
individuals, were faced with the choice to kill or be killed we would surely kill in
self-defense. And, who would argue that the necessity of self-defense is unjust?
Endnotes:
_________________
(1) Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War. The Melian dialogue [v.86]
(2) Thucydides, History... The Melian dialogue [v.89]
(3) Thucydides, History... The Melian dialogue [v.89]
(4) Thucydides, History... The Melian dialogue [v.95]
(5) Thucydides, History... The Melian dialogue [v.97]
(6) Thucydides, History... The Melian dialogue [v.111]
Reflections on this essay as of 05/30/2010:
_______________________________________________
The above essay is far too forgiving to empire and to the moral relativisitic framework in which it can thrive. Perhaps, in ancient times, warfare was the norm. Nothing, it appears, has changed except the technology we use therein.
Perhaps being able to communicate to the world, via the internet, is one possible way we can come to common understanding between nations and end empire building once and for all time. In any case, this essay was written during a time I did not fully comprehend the extent of human suffering in subjugation.
